Between those two? Insurrection was a hit over the head that knocked it down. But Nemesis was the lethal blow that killed it.

That said?

The TNG movies tried too much to follow the TOS formula. Instead of utilizing the ensemble the way the series did, it tried to focus on leads and let the rest be support. This was it's key mistake. "Generations" had to do this because of the transition, having Shatner as Kirk. "First Contact" did it, but less so, because everyone of the ensemble had something good and fun. It also had to focus a bit on Picard by virtue of the story. But it was a bit more even.

"Insurrection" really made it a Picard/Data movie and the rest got less, and then while "Nemesis" gave the rest a little more dialogue, it never the less was about Picard and Data and their "evil alternates" as it where.

Honestly, knowing how much Stewart and Spiner had influence behind the scenes, I frankly blame their egos a bit for such.

"Now Rick, old boy, wouldn't you say it would be a grand idea for Captain Picard to drive around on a planet in a Jeep? That'd be perfectly in line with what we've learned about him as a character over the last decade, wouldn't it? Of course it would, have it written into the script immediately."

I seem to remember Stuart Baird stating in subsequent interviews just how much he absolutely hated working with an established cast, on established sets, in an established franchise. One is forced to wonder why such a clearly unsuitable person would be placed in charge of a Star Trek: The Next Generation movie...

"Now Rick, old boy, wouldn't you say it would be a grand idea for Captain Picard to drive around on a planet in a Jeep? That'd be perfectly in line with what we've learned about him as a character over the last decade, wouldn't it? Of course it would, have it written into the script immediately."

Click to expand...

It may not be characteristic of the Picard we saw during TNG, but it is very much the Picard of the films post GEN. For better or worse.

Is it referring to a scientific poll of the general audience who saw the film, and then is that A- an amalgamation of the grades assigned by those polled who self-identified as Star Trek fans? If that's what it was, then what was the grade assigned by everybody else?

Or what?

Link, please?

Click to expand...

The post is self-explanatory no? I thought everyone knew what cinemascore was. Don't get in a huff because you were proven wrong.

Click to expand...

Actually, I wasn't found to be wrong. As per the discussion, CinemaScore provides no data to support what Star Trek fans in general thought about Nemesis. It only measures audience reaction on opening night.

Further research indicates that CinemaScore uses its score to predict box office returns for the film. Their results are behind a pay-wall, so we can't know whether their prediction was accurate in the case of Nemesis.

They also acknowledge that crowds on opening night tend to rank movies more favorably than at other times. That's another reason why your statement, that people who saw the film liked it, isn't an accurate statement. That may have been true on opening night, but we have no data for audiences on other days.

Given the existence of other data indicating an overall negative reaction to the film, the fact that CinemaScore claims that opening night ratings are skewed high, and the fact that the movie tanked, there's reason to doubt that veracity of the claim that "people who saw it liked it."

If people don't like the movie they're not going to give it an A- simple. Many movies people don't like get a lower score than A-. Regardless, this is moot, Cinemascore is the benchmark Hollywood itself uses.

It still seems like if people had followed along and gone to see it instead of listening to critical reaction, they may have enjoyed the movie. Also until ST 2009, ST Nemesis outsold any other ST film on home video and DVD...

That it bombed at BO is not in question(in fact my argument is that people like it when they see it generally speaking, BBS and hardcore trekkies notwithstanding apparently. NOT that lots of people saw it), however, when you take other sources other than box office, I calculated the movie made $120 million. I no longer have the figures with me, but I posted the results on Trek BBS many years ago. I'm sure many people remember that historic day.

Also while it gets a 6.3 from IMDB, that's better than a lot of big studio movies that "bomb" at the BO.

When it hit DVD, ST Nemesis avged a B- from major critics, or a 7 out of 12 to go with it's A- at Cinemascore:

The franchise had survived at least one extremely disappointing entry before, STV:TFF. The problem with NEM was the timing. If NEM had been released at a time when there was enough interest in the franchise to produce another try at bat, such as what TUC was, then NEM wouldn't have been such a disaster.

But there wasn't such an interest, and that's why NEM really was a disaster for the franchise. It was not only the film itself, but also the context in which it was released, that was the problem.

That film being released at that time killed the Prime Universe part of the franchise.

No matter how well NEM was regarded by those who liked it, it just wasn't as good as it needed to be, for the franchise to continue in the Prime Universe.

I seem to remember Stuart Baird stating in subsequent interviews just how much he absolutely hated working with an established cast, on established sets, in an established franchise. One is forced to wonder why such a clearly unsuitable person would be placed in charge of a Star Trek: The Next Generation movie...

Click to expand...

Simple. Paramount was rewarding Baird for the salvage job he did in the editing room on the first Tomb Raider movie.

I seem to remember Stuart Baird stating in subsequent interviews just how much he absolutely hated working with an established cast, on established sets, in an established franchise. One is forced to wonder why such a clearly unsuitable person would be placed in charge of a Star Trek: The Next Generation movie...

Click to expand...

Simple. Paramount was rewarding Baird for the salvage job he did in the editing room on the first Tomb Raider movie.

Click to expand...

Was those comments before or after he made Nemesis? If it was after maybe he never envisioned that the environment he would be working in would be so restrictive?

The franchise had survived at least one extremely disappointing entry before, STV:TFF. The problem with NEM was the timing. If NEM had been released at a time when there was enough interest in the franchise to produce another try at bat, such as what TUC was, then NEM wouldn't have been such a disaster.

But there wasn't such an interest, and that's why NEM really was a disaster for the franchise. It was not only the film itself, but also the context in which it was released, that was the problem.

That film being released at that time killed the Prime Universe part of the franchise.

No matter how well NEM was regarded by those who liked it, it just wasn't as good as it needed to be, for the franchise to continue in the Prime Universe.

Click to expand...

On the question of box office and "appearance" to both fans and the industry, there is NO doubt that after two sub-par performances that STNG movies were over, and 3 years later after Enterprise that the franchise was at a temporary halt. Mistakes were made by everybody, there is no point in blaming really, though if you were, ST fans themselves shoulder part of it.

I predicted a new movie within 5 years (which happened...everyone here thought I was nuts) and a new TV series in 10. Just wait for the announcement from after the new movie and before 2015.

Would we say that Nemesis wasn't really the "franchise killer"? Oh sure, it killed the TNG movies. But the prime universe continued to exist for a further three years on Enterprise, and Rick Berman was working on another (ultimately abandoned) movie script. If anything, its Enterprise that seems to have killed any goodwill for the Prime universe. That was the last one out of the gate.

Would we say that Nemesis wasn't really the "franchise killer"? Oh sure, it killed the TNG movies. But the prime universe continued to exist for a further three years on Enterprise, and Rick Berman was working on another (ultimately abandoned) movie script. If anything, its Enterprise that seems to have killed any goodwill for the Prime universe. That was the last one out of the gate.

Click to expand...

True.

I should have said that, given there was insufficient interest in a DS9 or VOY feature film, NEM's failure closed off any possibly of building on 24th century events in the PU, in film. And that closed off any practical possibly of expanding the Prime Universe continuity into the future at all.

Even though ENT was already in a death spiral anyway, as early as 2002, you're right, TATV was the actual whimper that the Prime Universe went out on.

Frakes had moved on as a director in 2001-02, with Clockstoppers which was, as far as I remember, a modest success. He might have turned down the assignment of another Trek film if offered, if the Nemesis script was as ill-judged as it seems to have been at any stage of its gestation.

I wonder whether Frakes deliberately stayed away from the writing side, unlike the other movie-directing cast members Nimoy and Shatner. Or perhaps he wanted to contribute but wasn't able because his influence wasn't the equal of the other actors who were given Trek feature writing credits (Nimoy, Shatner, Spiner) or otherwise made script decisions (Stewart).

Would we say that Nemesis wasn't really the "franchise killer"? Oh sure, it killed the TNG movies. But the prime universe continued to exist for a further three years on Enterprise, and Rick Berman was working on another (ultimately abandoned) movie script. If anything, its Enterprise that seems to have killed any goodwill for the Prime universe. That was the last one out of the gate.

Click to expand...

I see it a little differently. TNG died right after Nemesis, killed by Enterprise and the sudden urge to do a prequel. Ever since then, the "Prime" universe that mattered was gone anyway and we got a show and a film that dealt with time travel and how things were manipulated in the past. In both Enterprise and Abramstrek we get the "this isn't supposed to be this way" idea. So they haven't revisited the Prime universe for 11 years now.

For me, what sunk the Trek franchise of old was Star Trek Nemesis. It was just illogical and dumb. I also think that it really was a slap in the face to long term trekkies. Why was Lore not mentioned when they were discussing B4, what the hell were those aliens shooting at them for on the planet. And why, for heavens sake are we driving around in a dirt buggy instead of using a shuttle for recon? My in-depth analysis of all that was wrong can be found here:

For me, what sunk the Trek franchise of old was Star Trek Nemesis. It was just illogical and dumb. I also think that it really was a slap in the face to long term trekkies. Why was Lore not mentioned when they were discussing B4...

Click to expand...

Because it wasn't a movie about Lore. When you talk to someone do you mention every member of your family every, single time?

For me, what sunk the Trek franchise of old was Star Trek Nemesis. It was just illogical and dumb. I also think that it really was a slap in the face to long term trekkies. Why was Lore not mentioned when they were discussing B4...

Click to expand...

Because it wasn't a movie about Lore. When you talk to someone do you mention every member of your family every, single time?

Click to expand...

No, but if i found someone that looked identical to my identical brother called Lore, then I might say something like "hey guys, do you think this is Lore?"